"A Guy Called Tyketto" .
Larry Dighera wrote:
If you were truly a candidate to become an Air Traffic Controller, you
would have found the pertinent section(s) in FAA Order 7110.65 and
discovered that it fails to mandate reading back clearances. But you
took the comments as personal insults rather than objective
information and got your feelings hurt. If you're going to be a
controller, you've got to cool and objective. Work on it.

I agree. I did take comments here as insulting. But when you
have someone here telling you that you're ignorant, it's rather hard
not to take that as insulting. Double that coming from a controller. It
really makes you want to rethink entering the field if a potential
coworker, who should be helping you on it (albeit, he is helping) while
not berating you with the next word out of his mouth. I admitted that I
was wrong, and that you're right, the .65P doesn't mandate reading back
clearances. But on the other hand, I deserve more respect than being
insulted, let alone more respect for admitting that I was wrong.

After almost a dozen posts reflecting a unanimous consensus that you're
wronger that Wrongy W. Wrongenstein? You neither deserve nor should ask for
respect on Usenet. Your inability to recognize the improbability that you
could be the only person who got the simple point under discussion right
reminds me of the Larson cartoon with the seeing eye dog walking up the ramp
into the jet engine. You failed the simplest of tests, which is, "know
thine enemy". You picked the fight. Your posts are textbook jackass
material.

That aside, almost nobody, including the best this NG has to offer
(delivering your free education here) are exempt from criticism. Note the
number of disagreements between people in this thread who, pretty much, only
agree you're wrong. If you can't take it here, abandon hope of an ATC job.
At least until their union is back to full strength. (Uh oh. LOVE Usenet.)

moo